In reply to Re: Lou's reply-iyph » Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 26, 2015, at 17:02:21

> >What constitutes being beneficial?> > That the child's mental health is improved in some way.> > ed, Even if there was such an improvement, would you advocate that the child be drugged with that drug if was addicting?Lou> >

In reply to Lou's reply-wuduadvo » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2015, at 19:52:03

Lou,

First of all, my impression is that psychiatric medication is possibly overprescribed to children in some areas of the the US, mainly for ADHD symptoms. Such prescribing occurs to a much lesser extent elsewhere.

When prescribing to children, the potential for long-term changes to neurological function needs to be given special consideration; the brain is still developing. I do not believe that this issue has received adequate study, particularly considering how frequently stimulants are used. If stimulants were risk-free, I would not consider the high prescribing rates to represent possible overprescribing, but since they are not risk-free, I do.

>Even if there was such an improvement, would you advocate that the child be drugged with that drug if was addicting?

How do you define addicting in this case?

Every decision to prescribe medication should occur on an individual basis. The risks vs benefits need to be weighed up.

......................

In terms of the benefits, it would be necessary to consider:

-How severe (or chronic) is the patient's (child's) illness/disorder?

-Apart from medication, have other treatment options been explored?

-What level of improvement is the medication likely to produce? And is this improvement likely to persist?

In terms of risks:

-What side effects have occurred, or are occurring?

-How will side effects be monitored and dealt with?

-How will the prescriber monitor the effectiveness of treatment, to ensure that ineffective medication is not continued?

-How will the prescriber ensure that prescribed stimulants are not diverted?

-What is the potential for physical and psychological dependence?

-What is the risk of long-term neurological changes when amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs are taken during brain development?

In terms of your question about addiction, I think that it's important to consider early on during treatment how helpful (or unhelpful) the drug has been. If a stimulant proves unhelpful or harmful, it should be discontinued within the first few weeks. The will minimise the risk of withdrawal symptoms. In some cases it will be necessary to reduce the dose gradually.

The usefulness of the drug needs to be reassessed at intervals and discontinued where appropriate.

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-wuduadvo » Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 27, 2015, at 3:52:30

> Lou,> > First of all, my impression is that psychiatric medication is possibly overprescribed to children in some areas of the the US, mainly for ADHD symptoms. Such prescribing occurs to a much lesser extent elsewhere. > > When prescribing to children, the potential for long-term changes to neurological function needs to be given special consideration; the brain is still developing. I do not believe that this issue has received adequate study, particularly considering how frequently stimulants are used. If stimulants were risk-free, I would not consider the high prescribing rates to represent possible overprescribing, but since they are not risk-free, I do.> > >Even if there was such an improvement, would you advocate that the child be drugged with that drug if was addicting?> > How do you define addicting in this case?> > Every decision to prescribe medication should occur on an individual basis. The risks vs benefits need to be weighed up.> > ......................> > In terms of the benefits, it would be necessary to consider:> > -How severe (or chronic) is the patient's (child's) illness/disorder?> > -Apart from medication, have other treatment options been explored?> > -What level of improvement is the medication likely to produce? And is this improvement likely to persist?> > In terms of risks:> > -What side effects have occurred, or are occurring?> > -How will side effects be monitored and dealt with?> > -How will the prescriber monitor the effectiveness of treatment, to ensure that ineffective medication is not continued?> > -How will the prescriber ensure that prescribed stimulants are not diverted? > > -What is the potential for physical and psychological dependence?> > -What is the risk of long-term neurological changes when amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs are taken during brain development? > > In terms of your question about addiction, I think that it's important to consider early on during treatment how helpful (or unhelpful) the drug has been. If a stimulant proves unhelpful or harmful, it should be discontinued within the first few weeks. The will minimise the risk of withdrawal symptoms. In some cases it will be necessary to reduce the dose gradually.> > The usefulness of the drug needs to be reassessed at intervals and discontinued where appropriate.> > I hope this answers your question.

ed, Let us loom at this video. In it, a psychologist gives a view of psychiatry. Look to see if you can see parallels.Lou[ youtube, OGALRm1Wn ]

In reply to Lou's reply--a perspective » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2015, at 20:34:26

> > Lou,> > > > First of all, my impression is that psychiatric medication is possibly overprescribed to children in some areas of the the US, mainly for ADHD symptoms. Such prescribing occurs to a much lesser extent elsewhere. > > > > When prescribing to children, the potential for long-term changes to neurological function needs to be given special consideration; the brain is still developing. I do not believe that this issue has received adequate study, particularly considering how frequently stimulants are used. If stimulants were risk-free, I would not consider the high prescribing rates to represent possible overprescribing, but since they are not risk-free, I do.> > > > >Even if there was such an improvement, would you advocate that the child be drugged with that drug if was addicting?> > > > How do you define addicting in this case?> > > > Every decision to prescribe medication should occur on an individual basis. The risks vs benefits need to be weighed up.> > > > ......................> > > > In terms of the benefits, it would be necessary to consider:> > > > -How severe (or chronic) is the patient's (child's) illness/disorder?> > > > -Apart from medication, have other treatment options been explored?> > > > -What level of improvement is the medication likely to produce? And is this improvement likely to persist?> > > > In terms of risks:> > > > -What side effects have occurred, or are occurring?> > > > -How will side effects be monitored and dealt with?> > > > -How will the prescriber monitor the effectiveness of treatment, to ensure that ineffective medication is not continued?> > > > -How will the prescriber ensure that prescribed stimulants are not diverted? > > > > -What is the potential for physical and psychological dependence?> > > > -What is the risk of long-term neurological changes when amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs are taken during brain development? > > > > In terms of your question about addiction, I think that it's important to consider early on during treatment how helpful (or unhelpful) the drug has been. If a stimulant proves unhelpful or harmful, it should be discontinued within the first few weeks. The will minimise the risk of withdrawal symptoms. In some cases it will be necessary to reduce the dose gradually.> > > > The usefulness of the drug needs to be reassessed at intervals and discontinued where appropriate.> > > > I hope this answers your question.> > ed,> Let us loom at this video. In it, a psychologist gives a view of psychiatry. Look to see if you can see parallels.> Lou> [ youtube, OGALRm1Wn ]

In reply to correction-Lou's reply--a perspective, posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2015, at 20:41:45

> > > Lou,> > > > > > First of all, my impression is that psychiatric medication is possibly overprescribed to children in some areas of the the US, mainly for ADHD symptoms. Such prescribing occurs to a much lesser extent elsewhere. > > > > > > When prescribing to children, the potential for long-term changes to neurological function needs to be given special consideration; the brain is still developing. I do not believe that this issue has received adequate study, particularly considering how frequently stimulants are used. If stimulants were risk-free, I would not consider the high prescribing rates to represent possible overprescribing, but since they are not risk-free, I do.> > > > > > >Even if there was such an improvement, would you advocate that the child be drugged with that drug if was addicting?> > > > > > How do you define addicting in this case?> > > > > > Every decision to prescribe medication should occur on an individual basis. The risks vs benefits need to be weighed up.> > > > > > ......................> > > > > > In terms of the benefits, it would be necessary to consider:> > > > > > -How severe (or chronic) is the patient's (child's) illness/disorder?> > > > > > -Apart from medication, have other treatment options been explored?> > > > > > -What level of improvement is the medication likely to produce? And is this improvement likely to persist?> > > > > > In terms of risks:> > > > > > -What side effects have occurred, or are occurring?> > > > > > -How will side effects be monitored and dealt with?> > > > > > -How will the prescriber monitor the effectiveness of treatment, to ensure that ineffective medication is not continued?> > > > > > -How will the prescriber ensure that prescribed stimulants are not diverted? > > > > > > -What is the potential for physical and psychological dependence?> > > > > > -What is the risk of long-term neurological changes when amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs are taken during brain development? > > > > > > In terms of your question about addiction, I think that it's important to consider early on during treatment how helpful (or unhelpful) the drug has been. If a stimulant proves unhelpful or harmful, it should be discontinued within the first few weeks. The will minimise the risk of withdrawal symptoms. In some cases it will be necessary to reduce the dose gradually.> > > > > > The usefulness of the drug needs to be reassessed at intervals and discontinued where appropriate.> > > > > > I hope this answers your question.> > > > ed,> > Let us loom at this video. In it, a psychologist gives a view of psychiatry. Look to see if you can see parallels.> > Lou> > [ youtube, OGALRm1Wn ]> > correction,> [ youtube, OGALRmlWrr ]> Loucorrection[youtube, OGALRm1W4 ]

In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2015, at 0:58:40

> > > I don't consider that hate speech. But I don't consider it supportive, either.> >> > But readers could think that you consider it supportive on the basis that they could have read that you posted here that support takes precedence and members are to be civil at all times and that you do not wait to sanction since one match could start a forest fire.> > True, they could.> > Bob

Mr. Hsiung, You say that you can leave statements that are not supportive here, including but not limited to defamation toward me and antisemitic propaganda that could stigmatize Jews and create a hostile environment here against Jews and spread to terrorists networks that could give them the thinking that a psychiatrist is ratifying the hate as I see what you are doing here. What I am asking now is that you post here your thinking as why it will be good for this community as a whole to allow anti-Semitic propaganda and defamation toward me to be seen here as supportive. In this posting that I am asking from you could include any struggle that you could be harboring in your mind to go against your own rules to allow the anti-Semitic hate to be seen as civil by you here without you posting your tag line to sanction the statements in question. If readers knew of your vision, if any, that you see happenijg in the future as allowing the anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive here, that could go a long way for Jews and others to know what your thinking entails and they could respond accordingly. As of now, I do not know what this "good" is that will happen to your community by you allowing the anti-Semitic propaganda and defamation to be seen as supportive. Who does it support and why?Lou Pilder

In reply to correction 2-Lou's reply--a perspective, posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2015, at 20:47:04

> > > > Lou,> > > > > > > > First of all, my impression is that psychiatric medication is possibly overprescribed to children in some areas of the the US, mainly for ADHD symptoms. Such prescribing occurs to a much lesser extent elsewhere. > > > > > > > > When prescribing to children, the potential for long-term changes to neurological function needs to be given special consideration; the brain is still developing. I do not believe that this issue has received adequate study, particularly considering how frequently stimulants are used. If stimulants were risk-free, I would not consider the high prescribing rates to represent possible overprescribing, but since they are not risk-free, I do.> > > > > > > > >Even if there was such an improvement, would you advocate that the child be drugged with that drug if was addicting?> > > > > > > > How do you define addicting in this case?> > > > > > > > Every decision to prescribe medication should occur on an individual basis. The risks vs benefits need to be weighed up.> > > > > > > > ......................> > > > > > > > In terms of the benefits, it would be necessary to consider:> > > > > > > > -How severe (or chronic) is the patient's (child's) illness/disorder?> > > > > > > > -Apart from medication, have other treatment options been explored?> > > > > > > > -What level of improvement is the medication likely to produce? And is this improvement likely to persist?> > > > > > > > In terms of risks:> > > > > > > > -What side effects have occurred, or are occurring?> > > > > > > > -How will side effects be monitored and dealt with?> > > > > > > > -How will the prescriber monitor the effectiveness of treatment, to ensure that ineffective medication is not continued?> > > > > > > > -How will the prescriber ensure that prescribed stimulants are not diverted? > > > > > > > > -What is the potential for physical and psychological dependence?> > > > > > > > -What is the risk of long-term neurological changes when amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs are taken during brain development? > > > > > > > > In terms of your question about addiction, I think that it's important to consider early on during treatment how helpful (or unhelpful) the drug has been. If a stimulant proves unhelpful or harmful, it should be discontinued within the first few weeks. The will minimise the risk of withdrawal symptoms. In some cases it will be necessary to reduce the dose gradually.> > > > > > > > The usefulness of the drug needs to be reassessed at intervals and discontinued where appropriate.> > > > > > > > I hope this answers your question.> > > > > > ed,> > > Let us loom at this video. In it, a psychologist gives a view of psychiatry. Look to see if you can see parallels.> > > Lou> > > [ youtube, OGALRm1Wn ]> > > > correction,> > [ youtube, OGALRmlWrr ]> > Lou> correction> [youtube, OGALRm1W4 ]> ed, To see the video, bring up Google and type in:[ youtube, ADHD Drugs: Medication or ? ] you will see a pic...posted on Feb 11, 2013 and the time is 16:22Lou

> I now think that there is a real and present danger here by you leaving the statement to be seen as supportive as that a subset of readers could think that you and any deputy of record are validating what the statement could purport, which could lead to the deaths of Jews as either being victims of antisemitic violence

I wouldn't say I'm leaving it there to be seen as supportive; I'd just say I'm leaving it there. Or, if I'm leaving it to be seen as supportive, I'm also leaving your statements to be seen as supportive.

And, I'm less worried than you about those statements leading to violence.

--

> You claim here that the statement in question does not constitute hate speech in your thinking. I say to you that it depends on the jurisdiction that one is in when they post the statements in question that I am attempting to have you purge here or post a repudiation to.

True. I consider this my jurisdiction.

> You may not think the statements in question constitute hate-speech. But I do.

OK, reasonable people can disagree.

> as I see the historical record, those that tried to persuade the members of their community that they were doing good for the community as a whole by making genocide and the others state-sponsored, got away with slavery and genocide until the people could not wait any longer to see this "good" that was promised by the leaders saying to trust them.

True, the historical record is rife with injustice, and unjust leaders. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. In a way, I see you as the voice of eternal vigilance.

In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 15, 2015, at 11:12:42

> > I now think that there is a real and present danger here by you leaving the statement to be seen as supportive as that a subset of readers could think that you and any deputy of record are validating what the statement could purport, which could lead to the deaths of Jews as either being victims of antisemitic violence> > I wouldn't say I'm leaving it there to be seen as supportive; I'd just say I'm leaving it there. Or, if I'm leaving it to be seen as supportive, I'm also leaving your statements to be seen as supportive.> > And, I'm less worried than you about those statements leading to violence. > > --> > > You claim here that the statement in question does not constitute hate speech in your thinking. I say to you that it depends on the jurisdiction that one is in when they post the statements in question that I am attempting to have you purge here or post a repudiation to.> > True. I consider this my jurisdiction.> > > You may not think the statements in question constitute hate-speech. But I do. > > OK, reasonable people can disagree.> > > as I see the historical record, those that tried to persuade the members of their community that they were doing good for the community as a whole by making genocide and the others state-sponsored, got away with slavery and genocide until the people could not wait any longer to see this "good" that was promised by the leaders saying to trust them. > > True, the historical record is rife with injustice, and unjust leaders. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. In a way, I see you as the voice of eternal vigilance.> > Bob

Mr. Hsung, Let there be no misunderstanding here. You wrote;[...I would not say that I am leaving it {the collection of statements that defame Jews and others that I am objecting to here as being allowed to be seen as supportive by you}there to be seen as supportive...]. Well, if you are not leaving them to be seen as supportive, why are you leaving them since they can be seen as supportive by you?Lou Pilder

In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 17, 2015, at 9:51:56

> > > I wouldn't say I'm leaving it there to be seen as supportive; I'd just say I'm leaving it there. > > > Well, if you are not leaving them to be seen as supportive, why are you leaving them since they can be seen as supportive by you?> > I'm leaving them because they're contributions to the discussion here. Like I leave your posts because they're contributions to the discussion here.> > BobMr.Hsiung, You wrote,[...I'm leaving them (the anti-Semitic statements and others in our discussion here that can be seen as supportive and will in my thinking, Lou, be good for the community as a whole for them to be seen that way)because they are contributions to the discussion here...]. I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.True or False:A. I will open each of the posts with the unsanctioned anti-Semitism and type right down in the post something like:Owner's note:Be advised that the anti-Semitic statement(s) in this post are not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and not supportive and could lead a Jew and others to feel that their faith is being put down. If you want to discuss this, use the following link to the administrative board. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/....B. I will do no such thing, Lou. If I was to do that, I would have to admit that a subset of readers could make the conclusion that myself and my deputies of record collaborated to defame Judaism and inflict emotional distress upon you by leaving those statements to be seen as civil by us.C. I am going to accept your first worst offer, Lou, and delete all the archives past one year old.D. I will send an email to all members, past and present, that explains that the anti-Semitic statements allowed by me and my deputies of record to be seen as supportive here, were allowed by us to be seen that way originally so that Jews could be the target of hate and that could be discussed here, and now I am going to stop that by telling you that I have changed my mind and the reason is so that the anti-Semitism being allowed by us to be seen as civil and not against the rules here, can be discussed here on the admin board because they are contributions to a discussion here. If you do not accept that reasoning, you can contact the American Psychiatric Association."Dr. Bob"Lou PIlderC.

In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-turezunz » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 17, 2015, at 16:41:24

> > > Well, if you are not leaving them to be seen as supportive, why are you leaving them since they can be seen as supportive by you?> > > > I'm leaving them because they're contributions to the discussion here. Like I leave your posts because they're contributions to the discussion here.>> True or False:> A. I will open each of the posts with the unsanctioned anti-Semitism and type right down in the post something like:> Owner's note: ...

False.

> B. I will do no such thing, Lou. If I was to do that, I would have to admit that a subset of readers could make the conclusion that myself and my deputies of record collaborated to defame Judaism and inflict emotional distress upon you by leaving those statements to be seen as civil by us.

No, I'm not going to do that. Like I'm not going to add disclaimers to any of your posts. Some readers have already concluded that I'm collaborating with you to inflict emotional distress, anyway.

In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 22, 2015, at 11:49:23

> > > > Well, if you are not leaving them to be seen as supportive, why are you leaving them since they can be seen as supportive by you?> > > > > > I'm leaving them because they're contributions to the discussion here. Like I leave your posts because they're contributions to the discussion here.> >> > True or False:> > A. I will open each of the posts with the unsanctioned anti-Semitism and type right down in the post something like:> > Owner's note: ...> > False.> > > B. I will do no such thing, Lou. If I was to do that, I would have to admit that a subset of readers could make the conclusion that myself and my deputies of record collaborated to defame Judaism and inflict emotional distress upon you by leaving those statements to be seen as civil by us.> > No, I'm not going to do that. Like I'm not going to add disclaimers to any of your posts. Some readers have already concluded that I'm collaborating with you to inflict emotional distress, anyway.> > Bob

Mr. Hsiung, I reject your attempt here to justify leaving statements that could arouse hatred toward Jews to be seen as civil by you where they are originally posted. And if others accept your justification, that would not annul the fact that anti-Semitic statements are being allowed by you and your deputies or record to be seen as supportive here where I have offered you the opportunity to post a disclaimer that you are leaving them to be seen as supportive as they stand without your tagline to please be civil, but you do not consider them to be supportive. And worse, by the nature that they stand un repudiated by you and your deputies of record, readers could think that it will be good for your community as a whole in your thinking for them to be seen as supportive by you where they are originally posted. And until you post where they are originally posted some type of disclaimer that they are not going to be good in your thinking for the whole community to be seen as civil by you, the hate that is in those statements unsanctioned could be infused into the minds of young people and adults and be acted out in violence toward the Jews as that a psychiatrist, and a teacher, which are powerful influences on young minds as seeing you as the exemplar here, is allowing hate to be seen as being supportive by you. Be advised, my friend, that I do not accept any reason in your thinking to justify leaving posts where they are originally posted that could foster hatred toward the Jews here to be seen as supportive and in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. You say that you only take responsibility for posts that you author. Your posts here that attempt to justify leaving anti-Semitism to be seen as supportive where those posts are originally posted, is what you could take responsibility for, for you have rejected the opportunity that has been given to you to remediate and clarify that you do not consider the statements to be supportive. And by this rejection of yours to post a disclaimer to those statements, in my thinking you are saying that you will take responsibility for any injuries or deaths or suicides that arise out of readers seeing that you are allowing hatred toward the Jews to be seen as supportive where those posts are originally posted, and worse, you are rejecting the opportunity to post a disclaimer to show otherwise. Lou

In reply to Lou's reply- discussion with Mr. Hsiung-tehkrespon » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2015, at 10:33:23

> Be advised, my friend, that I do not accept any reason in your thinking to justify leaving posts where they are originally posted that could foster hatred toward the Jews here to be seen as supportive and in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. You say that you only take responsibility for posts that you author. Your posts here that attempt to justify leaving anti-Semitism to be seen as supportive where those posts are originally posted, is what you could take responsibility for, for you have rejected the opportunity that has been given to you to remediate and clarify that you do not consider the statements to be supportive. And by this rejection of yours to post a disclaimer to those statements, in my thinking you are saying that you will take responsibility for any injuries or deaths or suicides that arise out of readers seeing that you are allowing hatred toward the Jews to be seen as supportive where those posts are originally posted, and worse, you are rejecting the opportunity to post a disclaimer to show otherwise.

1. The only messages I take responsibility for are my own, but I do also take responsibility for my administrative decisions.

2. I see the risk of deaths or suicides arising from those posts as low, so I can accept it. Like I can accept the risk of deaths or suicides arising from your posts.

In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 24, 2015, at 22:38:58

> > Be advised, my friend, that I do not accept any reason in your thinking to justify leaving posts where they are originally posted that could foster hatred toward the Jews here to be seen as supportive and in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. You say that you only take responsibility for posts that you author. Your posts here that attempt to justify leaving anti-Semitism to be seen as supportive where those posts are originally posted, is what you could take responsibility for, for you have rejected the opportunity that has been given to you to remediate and clarify that you do not consider the statements to be supportive. And by this rejection of yours to post a disclaimer to those statements, in my thinking you are saying that you will take responsibility for any injuries or deaths or suicides that arise out of readers seeing that you are allowing hatred toward the Jews to be seen as supportive where those posts are originally posted, and worse, you are rejecting the opportunity to post a disclaimer to show otherwise. > > 1. The only messages I take responsibility for are my own, but I do also take responsibility for my administrative decisions.> > 2. I see the risk of deaths or suicides arising from those posts as low, so I can accept it. Like I can accept the risk of deaths or suicides arising from your posts. > > 3. I'm pleased you referred to me as your friend. > > Bob

Mr. Hsiung, There could be harm to come to me from here and harm could come to all Jews because the anti-Semitic statements being allowed by you and your deputies of record to be seen as civil and supportive, and worse, that by them being allowed to be seen as such, that it will be good in your thinking for this community as a whole to be seen that way. There is no denying by you of this harm to come from here to me and other Jews. And the fact that you refuse to honor your own rules here that could stop the hatred toward the Jews posted here as being able to be thought to be civil and supportive by you and your deputies of record, that you say you will take responsibility for because it is a conscious administrative decision by you to ignore my pleas to post a repudiation to the anti-Semitism being allowed here to be seen as being ratified by you and your deputies of record. But worse, the hate could be created and developed by you and your deputies of record and all the members that could be seen as being in concert with you here, by you rejecting the opportunity to post that the anti-Semitic statements are not supportive where they are originally posted. This is different than simple negligence. This is a policy of discrimination and abuse of your power to allow hatred toward the Jews to be fostered here as supportive. since it is your policy, then since your policy denies the equal protection of your rules to the Jews, then those that understand how anti-Semitism is created and developed by an administration could see your policy as an anti-Semitic policy because it is against the Jews,and hence this site to be an anti-Semitic site, just as if a city government denied the equal protection of its laws to Jews, it could be deemed to be an anti-Semitic city. And to say that the harm that could come to me and other Jews by anti-Semitism being allowed to be posted here with impunity, and allow it to continue, could lead a subset of jurists to consider your actions, or inactions, to be malicious. Here is a link that discusses this in some respect. But it is much more than that. For you now say that the harm that could come to me and Jews by you refusing to apply your own rules to sanction those statements is a low probability, that could show to a subset of readers to constitute contempt toward Jews here, as not being worthy to have hatred that is posted against them here to be sanctioned by you and your team of deputies as to be seen that the harm that could come to me and the Jews is unworthy to have your own rules apply to me and other Jews. As you being a psychiatrist and a teacher, that is a powerful influence to children and adults to create and develop anti-Semitic hate from here. And the flames that produce the embers of hate to be carried by the winds of the internet into the minds of vulnerable readers from here, could erupt into violence toward Jews without you knowing it. But you allow the fire of hate to burn from here continually by allowing anti-Semitic hate to be seen as supportive by you. Not likely? By what authority do you use, if any, to make such a claim?Lou Pilderhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1070134.html

In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 22, 2015, at 11:49:23

> > > > Well, if you are not leaving them to be seen as supportive, why are you leaving them since they can be seen as supportive by you?> > > > > > I'm leaving them because they're contributions to the discussion here. Like I leave your posts because they're contributions to the discussion here.> >> > True or False:> > A. I will open each of the posts with the unsanctioned anti-Semitism and type right down in the post something like:> > Owner's note: ...> > False.> > > B. I will do no such thing, Lou. If I was to do that, I would have to admit that a subset of readers could make the conclusion that myself and my deputies of record collaborated to defame Judaism and inflict emotional distress upon you by leaving those statements to be seen as civil by us.> > No, I'm not going to do that. Like I'm not going to add disclaimers to any of your posts. Some readers have already concluded that I'm collaborating with you to inflict emotional distress, anyway.> > Bob

Mr. Hsiung, You wrote:[...I'm leaving them(the posts with anti-Semitic propaganda allowed to be seen as being supportive by you and your deputies of record) because they are contributions to the discussion...]. The posts that I am asking you to notate as not supportive, civil, are posts that are not in this discussion, but on other threads outside of this discussion. The fact that we are having this discussion in order for you to post to the posts where they are standing without your tag line to please be civil, does not annul you posting to the posts where they are originally posted , for you have already done so in three posts so far and have invited me to give you others for you to do the same. As long as you allow the posts that have anti-Semitic propaganda being seen as supportive by you, those posts could enter the minds of vulnerable readers here to give them the false thinking that Jews are inferior people because you, a psychiatrist, are allowing the antisemitic propaganda to be seen as supportive and state that being supportive takes precedence. And a Jewish child reading here could think that you are deliberately allowing the posts to stand which could cause that person to feel put down and drawn down into a vortex of despair as coming here could cause a loss of hope of which at the time of in being in depression, that could induce the person to kill themselves. It is not that the poster posts the anti-Semitic propaganda with impunity by you as one thing, but it is that you say that it will be good for your community as a whole in your thinking for the anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive. That could create and develop further anti-Semitism wherever the posts land, be it in the U.S., Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, France, Belgium, or Skokie , Ill. The embers from the fire of hate could enter the minds of middle school students to have them bully Jewish children or Islamic children thinking that the anti-Semitic propaganda, which at times is also anti-Islamic, is being validated as supportive by you and your deputies of record, and then they could use that as contributions to their anti-Semitic, anti-Islamic agenda, or have that agenda induced into them by seeing that a psychiatrist and up to 6 deputes allow hatred toward the Jews and anti-Judaism to flourish from here that could create and develop anti semitic hate wherever the embers from the flames of hate land. Lou Pilder

In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 24, 2015, at 22:38:58

> > Be advised, my friend, that I do not accept any reason in your thinking to justify leaving posts where they are originally posted that could foster hatred toward the Jews here to be seen as supportive and in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. You say that you only take responsibility for posts that you author. Your posts here that attempt to justify leaving anti-Semitism to be seen as supportive where those posts are originally posted, is what you could take responsibility for, for you have rejected the opportunity that has been given to you to remediate and clarify that you do not consider the statements to be supportive. And by this rejection of yours to post a disclaimer to those statements, in my thinking you are saying that you will take responsibility for any injuries or deaths or suicides that arise out of readers seeing that you are allowing hatred toward the Jews to be seen as supportive where those posts are originally posted, and worse, you are rejecting the opportunity to post a disclaimer to show otherwise. > > 1. The only messages I take responsibility for are my own, but I do also take responsibility for my administrative decisions.> > 2. I see the risk of deaths or suicides arising from those posts as low, so I can accept it. Like I can accept the risk of deaths or suicides arising from your posts. > > 3. I'm pleased you referred to me as your friend. > > Bob

Mr. Hsiung, You wrote,[...I see the risks of deaths or suicide arising from those posts as low, so I can accept it. Like I can accept the risks of deaths or suicides arising from your posts...]. I am unsure as to what you want readers to think by you posting that you can accept it. You also say that the risk is low, but that could mean that there could be deaths or suicides arising out of the fact that you are allowing anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive and worse that you are deliberately leaving the anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen that way because in your thinking by you allowing them to be seen as civil, it will be good for your community here as a whole. This could lead readers to think that by you doing this, you are deliberately misrepresenting your terms of service here in order to have your community improved in your mind. This improvement in your thinking overrules even deaths of readers and innocent people that could be killed by your readers here as being victims of anti-Semitic/anti-Islamic violence here that could result from you allowing the anti-Semitic propaganda here to be seen as civil and supportive by you and your deputies of record and also allowing those posters here that are in concert with you to post with impunity what could decrease the respect and regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings toward me. You say that what I post has some probability of causing deaths or suicides to readers here. But you do not specify which posts, if there are any, that you are using to make such a claim about me. For the claim could be false, and I could show such if you were not to evade your responsibility to post the URLs of such posts that I am being accused of that could cause a death or suicide. I have posted the posts URLs here in showing the anti-Semitic propaganda being allowed to be seen here as supportive by all of you that I think have a responsibility and duty to sanction. My posts are facts, facts that could save lives and prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions. You say that there are posts by me here that could cause suicide and deaths. That could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings toward me so that there could be readers that are killed and commit suicide and innocent people killed by your readers here that use Jews and others as outlets for their sadism as a result of the seeing anti-Semitic propaganda being allowed by you and your deputies of record to be seen as supportive, and worse, that you are deliberately allowing them to stay that way because you say that you have in your mind some type of vision that by allowing anti-Semitic hate to be seen as supportive, it will for you and your community as a whole, even by being deliberately indifferent to my notifications that if you did act on them, then I could have the opportunity to refute your vision of an improved community that you say will result by leaving anti-Semitic hate unsanctioned here. Your accusation against me here that I post what could cause deaths or suicides, could in and of itself, IMHO, materially contribute to deaths and suicides by the tactic of evasion. The evasion is done by accusing me of posting what could cause deaths and suicides, where no posts are given by you. This could lead readers to be taken away from the true fact in question of that you and your deputies of record have left anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen here as supportive. This tactic is sometimes referred to as {red herring} or {shifting the blame} or {you to} in a transparent attempt to justify hatred toward the Jews to be allowed to stand by you. Many before you have used the same fallacious tactics as justification to arouse hatred toward the Jews that have resulted in millions of Jews being murdered. They can not speak here. I will speak for them.Lou Pilder

In reply to Re: What if subsets of readers disagree?, posted by bryte on September 3, 2014, at 19:00:22

> > > 1. How does one know which subset of readers is correct? > > Who says any subset is correct? Or that one being correct rules out the other being correct?> > >If being seen to be more civil by one subset involves being seen as less fair by another subset, which subset is more important? > > Methods that are more readily seen may create deeper impressions than methods that are seen less. Hsiung elected a very visible method of intervention. Discussion of how it is seen may be a byproduct of the fact that it is seen.> > > 2. How should Bob decide whether to act, when his judgment is questioned by subsets of readers with opposite beliefs?> > Should? That is subjective. He could choose to act in a manner that is more embarrassing rather than less embarrassing, according to his published statements. In published journals he advised his professional peers believe there may be value in a method that is more embarrassing to some people as compared to methods used by other moderators in other groups.> > > > 3. Can he use his judgment in deciding how to resolve this problem? > > He has used his judgement. He chose to be very visible - not only in his methods, but in promoting his methods via peer reviewed publications, social media, appearance in a leading national newspapers and active explanation of his methods in a mental health forum otherwise intended for mutual support among peers. He has also in some cases limited discussion of his very public expression of his judgment, setting boundaries he claims or expects are recognizable by a significant portion of his group - even though a significant portion maintains the boundaries are not consistent or predictable. We do not know if his judgement is truly the best judgement for a group. He asserts knowledge of what is best for the group, but lacks any reliable measure of benefit other than anecdotes and the continued existence of the group.> > > 4. If he should not use his judgment, how should he come to a decision as to whether to, or how to act?> > Humble leaders exercise judgment modestly. Leaders who trust their community trust the judgement of a community of peers. Many medical professionals rely on evidenced based practices. Evidence related to administration social networking has developed significantly since Hsiung established some basic methods from which he has not departed. Hsiung has based much of his practice on promoting, publicizing, defending or practicing his own methods rather than embracing judgements of a global community of social network providers that matured around him while his methods were informed in large part by decisions he made during the adolescence of his social network project.> > bryte, You wrote,[...We do not know if his (Mr. Hsiung's) judgment is truly the best judgment for a group...]. Now Mr. Hsiung says that he uses his judgment in relation to that what he does, or does not do, will be good for this community as a whole. But he also states that he uses fairness and the implementation of the Golden Rule in what he does here and that he asks readers to trust him in what he does, or does not do. And his deputies are trained in carrying out his wishes here. To determine if in reality what he does or does not do will or will not be good for this community as a whole, there could need to be some standard to use in the historical record where others have done similar things, or have not done what others have done, in particular but not limited to allowing anti-Semitic propaganda and defamation toward me here to be allowed to be seen by him and his deputies of record to be supportive and that by him allowing the statements that could harm Jews and me here, to be seen as supportive, that it will be good for the community as a whole for him to do so. My questions to you are how could you tell if what he is doing here will or will not be good for this community as a whole by seeing what is happening here now and what criteria could you use to predict that sometime in the future the community will be "good" and what is this "good" in your opinion that could establish any justification by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record for allowing anti-Semitic hate and defamation against me to stand here as being seen as supportive by him and how does his appeal for readers to trust him fit in to this as you see it ?Lou> >

In reply to Re: What if subsets of readers disagree?, posted by bryte on September 3, 2014, at 19:00:22

> > > 1. How does one know which subset of readers is correct? > > Who says any subset is correct? Or that one being correct rules out the other being correct?> > >If being seen to be more civil by one subset involves being seen as less fair by another subset, which subset is more important? > > Methods that are more readily seen may create deeper impressions than methods that are seen less. Hsiung elected a very visible method of intervention. Discussion of how it is seen may be a byproduct of the fact that it is seen.> > > 2. How should Bob decide whether to act, when his judgment is questioned by subsets of readers with opposite beliefs?> > Should? That is subjective. He could choose to act in a manner that is more embarrassing rather than less embarrassing, according to his published statements. In published journals he advised his professional peers believe there may be value in a method that is more embarrassing to some people as compared to methods used by other moderators in other groups.> > > > 3. Can he use his judgment in deciding how to resolve this problem? > > He has used his judgement. He chose to be very visible - not only in his methods, but in promoting his methods via peer reviewed publications, social media, appearance in a leading national newspapers and active explanation of his methods in a mental health forum otherwise intended for mutual support among peers. He has also in some cases limited discussion of his very public expression of his judgment, setting boundaries he claims or expects are recognizable by a significant portion of his group - even though a significant portion maintains the boundaries are not consistent or predictable. We do not know if his judgement is truly the best judgement for a group. He asserts knowledge of what is best for the group, but lacks any reliable measure of benefit other than anecdotes and the continued existence of the group.> > > 4. If he should not use his judgment, how should he come to a decision as to whether to, or how to act?> > Humble leaders exercise judgment modestly. Leaders who trust their community trust the judgement of a community of peers. Many medical professionals rely on evidenced based practices. Evidence related to administration social networking has developed significantly since Hsiung established some basic methods from which he has not departed. Hsiung has based much of his practice on promoting, publicizing, defending or practicing his own methods rather than embracing judgements of a global community of social network providers that matured around him while his methods were informed in large part by decisions he made during the adolescence of his social network project.> > > bryte, You wrote,[...his own methods...] Do you see in him using his own methods to be parallel to the methods of any historical person as to how his methods of denying me equal protection of his rules, and the allowing of anti-Semitic hate to be seen by him as being supportive here which could constitute abusive discrimination of power that could result in Jews being victims of anti-Semitic violence?Lou>

> > > Be advised, my friend, that I do not accept any reason in your thinking to justify leaving posts where they are originally posted that could foster hatred toward the Jews here to be seen as supportive and in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. You say that you only take responsibility for posts that you author. Your posts here that attempt to justify leaving anti-Semitism to be seen as supportive where those posts are originally posted, is what you could take responsibility for, for you have rejected the opportunity that has been given to you to remediate and clarify that you do not consider the statements to be supportive. And by this rejection of yours to post a disclaimer to those statements, in my thinking you are saying that you will take responsibility for any injuries or deaths or suicides that arise out of readers seeing that you are allowing hatred toward the Jews to be seen as supportive where those posts are originally posted, and worse, you are rejecting the opportunity to post a disclaimer to show otherwise. > > > > 1. The only messages I take responsibility for are my own, but I do also take responsibility for my administrative decisions.> > > > 2. I see the risk of deaths or suicides arising from those posts as low, so I can accept it. Like I can accept the risk of deaths or suicides arising from your posts. > > > > 3. I'm pleased you referred to me as your friend. > > > > Bob> > Mr. Hsiung,> You wrote,[...I see the risks of deaths or suicide arising from those posts as low, so I can accept it. Like I can accept the risks of deaths or suicides arising from your posts...].> I am unsure as to what you want readers to think by you posting that you can accept it. You also say that the risk is low, but that could mean that there could be deaths or suicides arising out of the fact that you are allowing anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive and worse that you are deliberately leaving the anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen that way because in your thinking by you allowing them to be seen as civil, it will be good for your community here as a whole.> This could lead readers to think that by you doing this, you are deliberately misrepresenting your terms of service here in order to have your community improved in your mind. This improvement in your thinking overrules even deaths of readers and innocent people that could be killed by your readers here as being victims of anti-Semitic/anti-Islamic violence here that could result from you allowing the anti-Semitic propaganda here to be seen as civil and supportive by you and your deputies of record and also allowing those posters here that are in concert with you to post with impunity what could decrease the respect and regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings toward me.> You say that what I post has some probability of causing deaths or suicides to readers here. But you do not specify which posts, if there are any, that you are using to make such a claim about me. For the claim could be false, and I could show such if you were not to evade your responsibility to post the URLs of such posts that I am being accused of that could cause a death or suicide. I have posted the posts URLs here in showing the anti-Semitic propaganda being allowed to be seen here as supportive by all of you that I think have a responsibility and duty to sanction. > My posts are facts, facts that could save lives and prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions. You say that there are posts by me here that could cause suicide and deaths. That could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings toward me so that there could be readers that are killed and commit suicide and innocent people killed by your readers here that use Jews and others as outlets for their sadism as a result of the seeing anti-Semitic propaganda being allowed by you and your deputies of record to be seen as supportive, and worse, that you are deliberately allowing them to stay that way because you say that you have in your mind some type of vision that by allowing anti-Semitic hate to be seen as supportive, it will for you and your community as a whole, even by being deliberately indifferent to my notifications that if you did act on them, then I could have the opportunity to refute your vision of an improved community that you say will result by leaving anti-Semitic hate unsanctioned here.> Your accusation against me here that I post what could cause deaths or suicides, could in and of itself, IMHO, materially contribute to deaths and suicides by the tactic of evasion. The evasion is done by accusing me of posting what could cause deaths and suicides, where no posts are given by you. This could lead readers to be taken away from the true fact in question of that you and your deputies of record have left anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen here as supportive. This tactic is sometimes referred to as {red herring} or {shifting the blame} or {you to} in a transparent attempt to justify hatred toward the Jews to be allowed to stand by you.> Many before you have used the same fallacious tactics as justification to arouse hatred toward the Jews that have resulted in millions of Jews being murdered. They can not speak here. I will speak for them.> Lou Pilder

Mr. Hsiung, I think that you have a responsibility to delete or sanction statements here that could dehumanize Jews in a timely manner and that failure to do so could contribute to the deaths of innocent people. You say that the probability of that happening is low, but that could mean to a subset of readers that you do recognize from your vision as a psychiatrist, that the statements that I am trying to get you to purge from here that contain anti-Semitic propaganda and defamation against me that are allowed by you to be seen as supportive and that in your thinking by you allowing those statements to be seen that way, it will be good for your community as a whole. I do not see how the deaths that could come from here to innocent people as a result of them seeing that you are allowing anti-Semitic hate to be seen as supportive here, to be good for any community as a whole even though you are putting out such ancient thinking that has been ruled to be a crime against humanity by world courts, that what will be good for the community as a whole will be the determining factor as to if hatred toward the Jews is allowed to be seen as supportive here by you. The thinking, to murder all the children deemed inferior by the leaders, called infanticide, on the grounds that it would be good for their community as a whole, has been ruled to be a crime against humanity. The thinking that slavery was justified in that the slaves were inferior people and that slavery will be good for the community has been ruled to be a crime against humanity. The thinking that segregation will be good for the community as a whole which stigmatized those segregated to be seen as inferior people has come to an end here in the U.S. in 1954. The thinking that genocide will be good for the community as a whole has been ruled a crime against humanity. This {good for the community s a whole} thinking for you to allow anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen by you as supportive turns my stomach. Here is another one, just like the other ones that you in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole by allowing the anti-Semitic hate to be seen by you as being supportive. In this post, Jews are made to be seen as inferior people as their religion is being replaced, which is a lie that Jews have been replaced and this lie contributes to anti-Semitic hatred as anti-Semitism is based on lies against the Jews called replacement theology or supersessionism, that I have been objecting for years to have you act on as putting down Jews which you agree constitutes anti-Semitic thought as posted here with impunity by you. Let us read this post as it is, for it is what it is. The lie that it was {God's plan} leads to replacement theology which is anti-Semitic on its face. Your site perpetuates this ancient flame of hatred against the Jews and as long as you refuse to address this post as to that it is either supportive or not, readers could think that it is supportive by you so that the fire of hate is still burning.Louhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/431168.html

In reply to correction to the correction to link for -bhdphay, posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2014, at 15:50:40

> > > > > > As a result of our discussion, I reconsidered and revised that:> > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1069145.html> > > > >> > > > > I see no revision at all> > > > > > > > Before, I said:> > > > > > > > > > > I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules. > > > > > >> > > > > > Right> > > > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html> > > > > > > > Above, I revised that:> > > > > > > > > > I might consider something against the rules, yet decide not to intervene.> > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > to make the revision, there would have to be some disclosure that has not been posted in your TOS/FAQ yet> > > > > > > > I disagree, some clarifications are posted here and never make it into the FAQ.> > > > > > > > > the grammatical structure has an implied condition for salvation, that is to be a Christian and not a Jew.> > > > > > > > A subset of readers could see that as a condition that was implied. I myself see it as a conclusion that could be jumped to.> > > > > > > > > Let us reason together. If you change your rule to allow you to leave defamation toward the Jews and me here un sanctioned, could not even more harm could come to me and Jews here? If not, why not?> > > > > > > > I agree, if I don't sanction it, harm could come to you. But that's only one side of the equation. If I do sanction it, could harm come to others?> > > > > > > > Bob> > > > > > Mr. Hsiung,> > > You wrote in my response to you that for there to be a revision the FAQ would need to have the revision in it as to be a disclosure to the readers here, that:> > > [...I disagree, some clarifications are posted here and never make it into the FAQ...].> > > Let us look at this post and in it you say that it is not in the FAQ.> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/2014004/msgs/1068732.html> > > Now after reading what is in that post, you wrote about not being in the FAQ.> > > What was behind you writing that?> > > Lou Pilder> > > > > correction to link> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20140304/msgs/1068732.html> > > correction to the correction:> Lou> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068732.html> Mr. Hsiung, You wrote,[...I agree, if I don't sanction it harm will come to you...]. The harm is compounded in that you are denying me equal protection of your rules, and worse, you try to justify the discrimination where I see no justification is deserved. Since you know that harm could come to me by you leaving anti-Semitism to be seen as supportive by you here, which causes harm to me, that same harm could come to all Jews. I am asking you now to:A. Address each anti-Semitic statement that you are allowing to be seen as supportive by you to stop the harm by opening up each post and typing right in the text something like: Owner's note:I should have known better than to keep a post like this up to be seen as civil. For harm could come to all Jews because the post insults Judaism and I could be seen to be validating the hate because I have not sanctioned it. And worse, a subset of readers could think that I am in concert with the members here that post anti-Semitic propaganda because I allow them to be exempt from my enforcement policy. This also could lead a subset of readers to think that I am being malicious in that they could think that my intent is to cause harm to Jews because a reasonable person would have seen a probability that Jews would be exposed to the risk of harm by me allowing the anti-Semitic hate to be seen as supportive by me, since being supportive takes precedence."Dr. Bob"Lou

In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-cre/dev » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 17, 2015, at 8:36:46

Mr. Hsiung,l You posted that you will not sanction statements that could allow anti-Semitism to flourish from here because:[...I could but I consider those outcomes unlikely...]. I have the immediate following concerns:A. By what authority, if any, do you use to make such a claim and could you post statistics to substantiate your claim in your thinking?B. How many more Jews need to be stabbed in order for you to sanction the posts that are anti-Semitic propaganda here standing where they are originally posted in your thinking?Lou Pilder

In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Lamdage22 on September 9, 2013, at 5:41:03

> Stop the hating, folks!

Lamdage, The consequences to allowing the hate here to be seen as being supportive where it is originally posted can infect those that trust Mr. Hsiung as he asks readers to do in his TOS. His overriding claim for you to trust him is that what he is doing will be god for his community as a whole as he thinks. Many have used that argument to justify the murder of Jews. And in their last words some of the convicted war criminals said the same thing, that they were doing good by committing genocide. Let us look at this:Louhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSQes9jsTbs